This is an excellent idea. Of course, it would be best if the people who played those Beta maps often contributed their thoughts in the map thread, but raw statistics from lots of games are probably still valuable if the mapmaker uses them correctly.

I disagree with the idea, I think the point of beta is to work out any unbalanced gameplay in the map and sometimes the maps are changed.. how many times was das schloss changed before it came out of beta? It's a decent idea but I don't see it plausible

Ninja Champion wrote:I disagree with the idea, I think the point of beta is to work out any unbalanced gameplay in the map and sometimes the maps are changed.. how many times was das schloss changed before it came out of beta? It's a decent idea but I don't see it plausible

Shouldnt the ones who suffer thru and help them discover needed changes and balancing get rewarded? I understand random is different, but we give all kinds of GA and other recognition medals. This also shows you play it often before it becomes a regular map.

IcePack

12:11:16 ‹Swifte› good thing we have the beta program to weed all these problems out 12:15:00 * IcePack joins Social12:15:35 ‹Swifte› well that's just bad timing

Ninja Champion wrote:I disagree with the idea, I think the point of beta is to work out any unbalanced gameplay in the map and sometimes the maps are changed.. how many times was das schloss changed before it came out of beta? It's a decent idea but I don't see it plausible

Ninja Champion wrote:I disagree with the idea, I think the point of beta is to work out any unbalanced gameplay in the map and sometimes the maps are changed.. how many times was das schloss changed before it came out of beta? It's a decent idea but I don't see it plausible

totally right.

The only way unbalanced gameplay is determined is by extensive playtesting. Rewarding that playtesting encourages more of it, which in turn gives the mapmakers more information about their map. The point of the Beta medal isn't to reward people for being good at maps that haven't been thoroughly vetted yet; it's to reward people for contributing to the CC community.

Ninja Champion wrote:I disagree with the idea, I think the point of beta is to work out any unbalanced gameplay in the map and sometimes the maps are changed.. how many times was das schloss changed before it came out of beta? It's a decent idea but I don't see it plausible

totally right.

The only way unbalanced gameplay is determined is by extensive playtesting. Rewarding that playtesting encourages more of it, which in turn gives the mapmakers more information about their map. The point of the Beta medal isn't to reward people for being good at maps that haven't been thoroughly vetted yet; it's to reward people for contributing to the CC community.

Ty for explaining this better than I could

12:11:16 ‹Swifte› good thing we have the beta program to weed all these problems out 12:15:00 * IcePack joins Social12:15:35 ‹Swifte› well that's just bad timing

This is a great idea. I love playing beta and don't always give feedback because i try to read some of the forum and see if my idea had been mentioned before. But rewarding players for playing beta is a great idea. A beta medal would encourage people to play more beta maps and this will result in more beta conversations. People still make suggestions on old maps think about how many more suggestions people would throw out there on maps that still need it.

bad dice happen to good players ...We'll roll up a mighty score never give in, shoulder to shoulder we will fight, fight, fightfightfight!

Hm, it is an interesting idea. I'm not sure how feasible it is---in the sense I'm not sure if Lack stores information on 'Beta' (not unlike how we didn't immediately store information on Random Maps after they were no longer random). This idea kind of reminds of me of a type of medal various other (gaming and non-gaming) websites have---something like the 'Bug Squasher' medal---in the sense of you get a medal for helping identify issues.

A Beta Medal is a little bit different, since ideally there would be no issues to identify, so its a mix of of say CrossMaps and the above medal notion. Hm. I don't think I'm sold on it, but more discussion would be interesting.

I like the theory behind this, that it gets more people playtesting, and there should be a reward for possibly sacrificing your points on maps that might be unbalanced, but at the same time, I don't know if this should be implemented.

I am a little worried about a few things.

1) The coding of it. Like Andy pointed out, it is entirely possible that this isn't currently tracked, but more importantly, what happens when a game is started in BETA and then quenched? Do those games count if they end after? Also, this sounds to me like a coding nightmare.

2) I am worried that this relies too heavily on other factors. What happens if the Foundry ever slows down?

3) I don't think you can give an award for something that isn't a full site feature. These maps are in BETA because they are not fully operational, they may be unbalanced, occasionally there are full XML errors that prevent territories from attacking, they may have other issues, they may change. While I do think it is great that the community works to fix these, I don't think it is appropriate for this to be medal worthy.

nolefan5311 wrote:This is a great idea. Would also increase Foundry participation.

But at the wrong time. We need people to look at the foundry a lot earlier than beta.

As for a beta trophy, no problem with it. But how would you do it. Beat 400 opponents for the gold like normal, and as you said, finding players can be hard so this might get some more player (trophy hunters) till they get the gold.

Have it as games instead of payers.Win 20 bronzewin 100 silverwin 400 gold

nolefan5311 wrote:This is a great idea. Would also increase Foundry participation.

But at the wrong time. We need people to look at the foundry a lot earlier than beta.

Getting players to actively participate in the foundry isn't going to happen. However, this at least has the potential to get players involved at the beta stage. I like the idea anyway (I'm usually in support of new medal ideas), but I like it even more that it could encourage some foundry participation even at the beta stage.

I am going to bump this great idea to the top of the list. I still feel it needs some tweaking but the idea of winning 400 games for a gold would be a great achievement and to have a medal for it would be really nice. As I said earlier (last year in fact) the games instead of players for the medal.

Win 20 bronze

win 100 silver

win 400 gold

Having it start fresh, so everyone starts at 0 will get players more interested in new games now and not have players getting a medal for being on the site for a long time. Also, with it starting fresh, this should make it easier to programme for the site as a whole.